Pink Poogle Toy Forum

Anyone agree with me that they should fire Gambon and bring in Ian McKellen (LotR) for Dumbledore?

Old Dumbledore (Richard Harris) > New Dumbledore.

Don't remember what it was like in the book, but there wasn't much of Snape or Draco. I haven't read the book in like 5 years though...

And wow...talk about gruesome. It earned the rating, and the books are NOT kids books. Wow, I wonder how they're going to keep OOTP and HBP FROM being R.

Ooh...OOTP is 2007 and HBP is 2008. Boo...we have to wait at least a year and a half. Oh well, maybe they're filming them back-to-back.

I disagree. I think in the third film Gambon was infinitely better than in the fourth film (I loved that "Did what? Good night" line when he went off humming, at the end of the film). Harris, in my opinion, was a catastrophe. He was just too old and didn't have the spark that Dumbledore should have. Gambon, at least, is more energetic. The third film had the best Dumbledore, I think. In the fourth film he turned into a catastrophe too.

I hate how parents bring their four-year-olds into the film thinking how it's Harry Potter so it can't be that scary. Jo Rowling herself said she never thought of her books as childrens books. Some parents are just so careless!

What are people's opinions on Voldemort? I love Ralph Fiennes' interpretation very much, but I always imagined him as a more quiet, cold type of character. I really love that part where he steps on dead Cedric. So cold, so disdainful, so sick, SO in character. That was the moment that did it for me, I think.

I'm going to see it for a third time this Thursday in IMAX.

I just saw it tonight, I'll have to see it again.

I think they did a fabulous job of condencing such a long book into a 3-hour movie. I think leaving the house-elves out was a good move: they way they actually did things made the plot tighter and emphasized Crouch and Neville more. I do, however, think they should have cut the Quiddich World Cup totally: as it stood it did nothing for the plot.

As a Snape fan, I was disappointed that there wasn't more of Snape: given that the fact that Snape was a Death Eater is going to be important later I'm surprised they glossed over it so quickly. I wish they had put in the confrontation with Snape and Fudge at the end of the movie, where Snape shows his Dark Mark, and also the bit where Dumbledore sends Snape back to Voldemort.

I did like "Snape supervises study hall," though. I suppose it as a bit of a comedy role, but it's easy to have Snape some across as totally unsympathetic. I think casting him into the role of a teacher dealing with annoying students who won't stop talking in a way I suspect many teachers wish they were allowed to deal with annoying students was a nice change. :-)

I think they should have either put more of Sirius in or left him out entirely. The little bit with him in there would have been confusing to people not very familiar with the series. I think leaving him out would have been better for the movie, but putting more of him in would have been better for the series, given that he's going to be important in the next movie.

A few more nits:

Given the big deal they made about Neville at the beginning I'm surprised they didn't make more of what happened to his parents: I should have asked the other people I went with, but I bet most of the audience missed it.

Similar to what they did with the shape of Harry's Patronus in the third movie, I thought not explaining why Harry's parents came out of Voldemort's wand was a bit silly.

As an aisde, I seem to recall being told that McKellen had been offered the role and, not surprisingly, turned them down. (Having just come off a three-movie, multi-year stint playing a wizard, I doubt he wanted to commit himself to a series of 6 movies in a similar role.) This is just something I recall reading, it could be wrong. (I interpreted that scene as Dumbledore being very afraid for Harry, BTW. Personally, I like seeing Dumbledore a little more human.)

Chris Columbus > Alfonso Cuarón > Mike Newell. Cuarón hasnt got a single drop of magical vision in his entire body. He totally ruined the tone of POA.

"Well of course children cant relate to character in robes! We must do away with them immiediately and dress everyone in hoodies and baseball caps!"

"But, sir, they are wizards. And the books did pretty well.."

"Dont tell me about what the public wants, Boy! I went to Director School for 3 and a half years, you know!"

, but at least he had flair. Newell now seems to think this has paved the way for him to ruin the series even further.

"Yeah, yeah, Rowling. Lets use "elves". Because that hasnt been done to death, has it. Havent you seen LOTR? You just go and have a cup of tea, Love. I'll look after this."

I honestly was very close to hating this movie. Creating a miss-matched jumble of rubbish that just about paper trails through the ongoing story for those who havent read the books isnt good enough. Rowling should be ashamed. She has sold out on the readers in an effort to line her own pocket even futher. The only thing saving this from being an utter waste of time are the action scenes, and even those didnt feel exactly right. Voldemort came across more Golem than Sauron in my opinion. Hes supposed to be a Dark Lord, not a screeching, slavering nutcase.

And all of these rants are not simply due to ignoring the books. I have seen and enjoyed too many adaptation over the years that skip over or do away with alltogether entire scenes. The fact is that this particular job was hashed. Badly.

Abysmal. But maybe it will grow on me. Sadly, POA never really did.

When I saw voldemort, it was like, totally rubbish. When he rose up in a big thing of fire, OH WOWEZ i thought, the dark lord is back! I'm sure now he'll have a deep voice and incredibly on-screen presence. He'll dominate the next few minutes of the film and have the audience agape at how powerful and evil he is. I'll really be able to understand why the wizarding world feared this guy.

What did I get instead? A man with no nose.

And then, harry does a laser-battle (which admittedly isn't seen enough in films today) with a disarming spell? Vs one of the most powerful wizards ever? hmmmmm

Dangit, you made me laugh out lioud in class. Now I'm busted. >_<

Come on guys, he DID have a nose. Just... it was very snakelike... so... yeah.

I liked Voldie and Fiennes did a great job but he was definitely not what I was expecting.

I really loved this film. The last one I was disappointed with as I felt so much had been cut and the film was too short. This one had arguably more cut from it but this time I could see the point - the film was long enough and the fourth book is far longer than the third. Also I liked the fact that rather than simply omitting details (such as Winky and the wand at the world cup) they retold certain elements to fill out the gaps (such as Barty appearing right at the beginning).

The acting of the younger actors was much improved, and I liked that they put more influence on the teen angst now rather than later (like in the books when everyone goes on a snogging rampage all of a sudden in one book) and treated them more as teenagers and less as ickle kiddies. There was a lot of humour and a lot of extra stuff that was great, like Neville and his dancing and all the other Neville bits :) And yay for no smooching between Harry and Cho like so many papers insisted happened. And boo for no smooching between Hermione and Krum, I mean really Ron deserved it >:) I'm glad they paid attention to how Voldemort is meant to sound, I've heard so many people complaining as they were expecting a Vader/sterotypical villain voice but his voice was as described in the books.

The scene where Harry brought Cedrics body back was so much more powerful than in the book for me with all the cheering and music while Harry sobs... I burst into tears *is embarrassed*

Overall this is my favourite of the films so far. I think some go into the cinema expecting something they aren't going to get - the first two books are really short so it is easy to simply tell the whole book in film form. The third still bothers me a little, but this one I think was handled excellently. The films can no longer be filmed versions of the complete books, the books just don't convey well to film that way as there are too many little details. Some stuff has to be chopped and some left in, I enjoy seeing the directors interpretation of the book. And as for arguing about how future plot lines involving the skipped bits will now fit together? Quite easily. I'm sure if one film can have Barty right at the beginning of the film then they can just as easily have a reason for Rita to write the article for the Quibbler.

This film I think shows that the films are great in their own right too. Most people I know loved it, those that didn't were obsessed with what had been missing. I think as long as you don't go in expecting the book on screen all is well. If you go in and spend the whole film making a checklist of what is different or has been missed then essentially you are going in determined not to like the film on its own merits. The films are not the books and the books are not the films. I think if more people enjoyed each for what they are everyone would be happier ^^;

Goblet of Fire - my favourite HP book, and now my favourite HP film. Methinks I'll go see it again :D

Voldemort not evil enough?
You dont understand evil then.


Err. Wasn't that the point anyway?

Hmm, I sort of agree with that, but the first two movies were too 'Disney-ish' for my tastes.. but they were closer to the books than POA and GOF. Maybe it's because SS and COS are a LOT less dark than POA, and GOF. (And OOTP and HBP)

Just because a movie is closer to the book doesn't mean it's a good movie. I happen to like PoA the most, not because it's closest to the books, but because it stands alone as an enjoyable movie to watch.

In my opinion, SS and CoS were TOO close to the books. I agree that they were also very Disney-ish. It was like watching the books, and that's not what I go to see. I go to see a good movie, not a good representation of the book.

We have to remember that the books and the movies are two separate things.

As someone who's never read the books (can't get into them atm).. I can only comment on the movie itself.
And I absolutely LOVED it.

I loved how much more mature it all felt compared to the other movies.
Could be because of the violence and how dark the movie was, but it really pulled you into those "scary" heart racing moments.

Really excellent movie.. I think it's my fav out of the bunch so far. I'll definetly be buying it when it comes out.

I actually cringed a bit when they revealed Voldemort... He really resembled the woman who played Satan in "Passion of the Christ"... That totally gave me nightmares for a week!

I dunno. Slithery and repulsive seems to fit with Voldemorte. If it's not supposed to be that way in the books, do share. As stated, I don't own a copy of the fourth book. But I have to admit, I didn't quite imagine him that way. However, Ralph Fiennes did a pretty good job.

Don't worry, Trick. I cried too. The friend sitting on my left bursted into tears as well.